Klemens v. Berryhill, 703 F. App'x 35

Plaintiff James A. Klemens, Jr. appealed the denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits and SSI after the ALJ found he could return to his past work as a cleaner/refurbisher of apartments (Step Four).
The ALJ concluded Klemens’s 2007 cleaning work was "past relevant work" because it was performed within 15 years, was learned, and had "sufficient earnings to raise the presumption of substantial gainful activity," but explained this in a single sentence.
The administrative record contains inconsistent evidence about Klemens’s 2007 earnings and dates: (1) a disability report claiming 8 hrs/day, 5 days/week at $7.50/hr (implying SGA-level earnings); (2) certified earnings records showing only $2,915.63 for 2007 (below SGA); and (3) a 2012 form with different employment dates.
At the hearing the ALJ did not develop testimony about the 2007 work or reconcile the conflicting documentary evidence, instead asking about post-2008 work.
The district court affirmed the Commissioner; the Second Circuit reviewed the ALJ’s administrative decision for substantial evidence and legal error and vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ adequately found Klemens’s 2007 cleaning/refurbishing job was "substantial gainful activity" (SGA)	Klemens: the ALJ failed to explain or reconcile conflicting earnings evidence and did not develop the record about 2007 work	Commissioner: the ALJ’s conclusion that earnings raised a presumption of SGA was sufficient	Vacated and remanded: ALJ failed to acknowledge/resolve conflicting evidence or explain rejection of contrary records; must clarify and develop record as needed
Whether the ALJ adequately explained that Klemens could perform his past relevant work	Klemens: ALJ did not provide required analysis tying medical/functional limitations to past work requirements	Commissioner: decision was sufficient or premature to revisit because ALJ deemed work to be past relevant	No determination made—court declined to reach this until ALJ resolves SGA question and, if necessary, further develops rationale on remand

McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146 (2d Cir.) (standard of review: substantial evidence and plenary review of administrative record)
Kohler v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 260 (2d Cir.) (review focuses on administrative ruling)
Perez v. Chater, 77 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. Supreme Court) (substantial evidence standard explained)
Valente v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 733 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir.) (ALJ must acknowledge and explain rejection of relevant evidence)
Ferraris v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 582 (2d Cir.) (need for specificity in ALJ findings to permit review)
Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172 (2d Cir.) (remand instructions and limits on reviewing courts reaching issues prematurely)
Abbott v. Colvin, [citation="596 F. App'x 21"] (2d Cir.) (ALJ must develop and fully explain past work analysis)